The Issues Facing Maryland

CBF's story map let's you get the facts about what's going on in your neighborhood.

Baltimore City Sewage Overflow:Past Time to Fix the Pipes

Sewage overflows continue to pollute Baltimore City waterways, fish kills and the repugnant smell of human waste foul the Inner Harbor when the weather warms. But raw sewage is not just a water quality issue; it's a human health concern as well. And it doesn't begin or end in the Inner Harbor. All of Baltimore's neighborhoods and river systems are affected. If that's not enough, city officials don't have an accurate accounting of the hundreds of millions of dollars paid by rate payers to fix the problem.

A: As water flows off of our streets, parking lots, and building rooftops, it picks up fertilizers, pesticides, oil, and automotive fluids, pet waste, sediment, and other pollutants. This simple process—untreated stormwater flowing through gutters and storm drains—pollutes our rivers and streams and threatens our drinking water. It also causes problems like local flooding of streets and homes, beach closures, fish advisories, and sewage system overflows.

Q: Why has urban and suburban polluted runoff emerged as a national issue?

A: Up until about the 1980s, builders didn’t know much about the problems associated with polluted runoff. They just designed developments to flush the water off the property quickly. Now we realize runoff should be slowed down and soaked up to prevent pollution from running off developed areas and into our local rivers and streams.

In fact, in the Chesapeake Bay region, this sort of pollution is the only major pollution sector still on the rise. Air pollution is down, as is pollution from wastewater treatment plants and agriculture. Tackling urban and suburban runoff remains a big challenge as our state continues to grow.

Q: Why has polluted runoff become a big issue in Maryland specifically?

A: Maryland's cities and suburban areas contain some of the highest concentrations of impervious surfaces—hard surfaces where water can't be absorbed by and filtered through the ground—in the whole Chesapeake Bay watershed. And, not surprisingly, the state also has a huge list of waterways that are officially considered polluted. In fact, the "impaired waters" list includes waterways in every county in the state. Damage from this pollution to the Chesapeake Bay is also dramatic, because Maryland's concentrated areas of urban and suburban development are close in proximity to the Bay compared to urbanized areas in most of Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint requires each of the Bay states to reduce pollution or be subject to consequences for failure. But polluted runoff has ramifications far beyond the health of the Bay. This pollution damages local rivers and streams, is often responsible for expensive flooding, and, especially after a significant rainfall, can put human health at risk.

Q: My jurisdiction has a stormwater utility fee. What is that?

A: Just like other services, such as water and sewer or gas and electric, stormwater can be managed as a utility that is supported by a billed fee. A stormwater utility fee is based on the idea that all developed properties contribute to polluted runoff in their watershed and should help support efforts to reduce this runoff and the pollution that it carries.

Q: Are stormwater fees required by the state?

A: In 2012, the Maryland General Assembly passed the Watershed Protection and Restoration Program. While this legislation originally required the 10 largest and most urban jurisdictions in the state to set fees to address their polluted runoff problems, revisions to the law in 2015 removed that fee requirement. It did not remove the requirement that these jurisdictions clean up stormwater pollution. In fact, it increased accountability for doing so by requiring that jurisdictions demonstrate they have adequate funding and plans in place to reduce their polluted runoff.

Q: Why does the Watershed Protection and Restoration Program only apply to some places in Maryland?

A: These 10 urban areas have the most land that doesn't allow water to filter slowly into the ground (impervious area). They are also the only jurisdictions in Maryland charged with meeting very strict federal Clean Water Act permits. Under the revised 2015 state law, these counties are required to have plans in place that demonstrate what activities they will undertake to clean up polluted runoff and how they will pay for it. Counties are required to have adequate funding set aside in a dedicated fund to be used only to clean up polluted runoff. How they come up with this funding is up to them. Some counties will allocate it from their general funds while others will keep their stormwater utility fees in place to ensure they have the funding needed.

Recognizing the water quality threat posed by polluted runoff, some counties and municipalities have taken a lead in addressing the problem without requirements from state law or Clean Water Act permits. Some have had similar fees and programs in place for decades. For example, Prince George's County has assessed a tax for polluted runoff since 1986. Bowie has charged commercial properties a fee to address polluted runoff since 1988. Salisbury created a volunteary stormwater utility fee in 2014-15 to address poor local water quality caused by polluted runoff and aging storm drain infrastructure. A number of other areas implemented similar fees in the 1990s and 2000s.

Q: If we already pay taxes, why does my local government need to charge additional fees to restore the Bay?

A: With all the challenges they face, state and local governments have often chosen to do the minimum required to reduce polluted runoff. With adequate dedicated funding, local governments can implement practical, proven solutions that were previously too expensive, or that could have only been done if money was taken from other important social services. The fee also provides important leverage for financing projects with bonds or state revolving loans. Regardless of financing option, local creeks and rivers will get cleaner only to the degree local officials fund needed work. Little or no new funding will continue to mean dirty, unhealthy local waters.

Q: We already pay the Bay Restoration Fee ("flush tax"). Why do I have to pay a stormwater fee, too?

A: The Bay Restoration Fund or "flush tax" money goes to upgrading sewage plants. The money is being well spent. Most major plants in the state have been upgraded or are being upgraded, reducing nitrogen pollution into local waters by more than six million pounds a year. The flush tax was doubled in 2012 to finish the job of upgrading sewage plants. Your stormwater fees go to upgrade the stormwater system—the ponds, pipes, gutters, and other structures that channel and treat polluted runoff before it reaches creeks, also reducing flooding. That spending will provide substantial, additional pollution reductions in each community.

Q: Am I being charged the same amount as other property owners with more pavement or hard surfaces?

A: Local governments are given complete freedom to decide not only the size of their fee, but how it is collected. Some opt to charge property owners with more "impervious surfaces" higher fees. Other jurisdictions use a "flat fee." Jurisdictions take different approaches to funding their polluted runoff cleanup. Contact your local government for more detailed information.

Q: What about the assertion that these stormwater fees are a tax on rain (or a "rain tax")?

A: That moniker is catchy but blatantly false. It is designed to mislead and confuse. The truth is that we are talking about a fee to reduce pollution from water that washes off hard surfaces and empties into local waterways. Runoff pollution is real—it is responsible for no-swimming advisories and beach closures in local waters, fish consumption advisories, and dead zones in the Bay that can't support aquatic life. It also causes localized flooding and property damage. And in many areas, it is the largest source of pollution. If we delay this important work, in the end it will cost more to clean up polluted runoff and reverse its negative impacts to water quality and the Bay's economy.

The bottom line is that this work must be done. There are federal and state requirements to reduce runoff pollution from urban and suburban areas. A fee on impervious surface is often the best model to do this because the fee is connected to the cause of the pollution. Counties that don't have stormwater fees must raise the revenue by other means, such as property taxes or income taxes.

Q: Are stormwater fees used locally?

A: Yes! If your jurisdiction has a fee, it is collected by the county or city and used only in that county or city to fix polluted runoff problems. The money will never go into a state fund, and there is accountability and transparency.

The fee are used for simple, proven solutions that work by slowing down and absorbing much of the polluted runoff. These solutions include planting trees, planting vegetation around streams, restoring stream beds, and using rain barrels and rain gardens. These local projects not only reduce pollution and improve water quality, but also make our communities more beautiful, reduce flooding, and create jobs. Scientific monitoring will verify that the projects are effective and efficient.

Q: For places that have fees, why do they differ?

A: Each county and city is unique, and so are their water quality problems. Counties and cities also have very different fiscal circumstances, which influence how they can pay for polluted runoff cleanup. Despite the amount of work needed to restore Maryland's rivers and streams, Maryland's polluted runoff fees are lower than those in quite a few other states.

Q: Does the Chesapeake Bay Foundation receive funding from any of the fees?

A: Absolutely not. Neither do we receive a penny of funding from the Bay Restoration Fund, or "flush fee." These are government initiatives. We are a non-profit, private agency.

Q: Can I have my fee reduced? I've heard some jurisdictions are offering discounts.

A: Many local governments offer some type of credits or discounts if a property owner takes steps to reduce polluted runoff from his land, and some of those credit or discount programs are required by the 2015 legislation to ensure that fees don't pose an undue hardship on property owners. Contact your local government to learn more about credits or discounts that may be available where you live.

Q: Don't we have bigger pollution problems to worry about? Isn't the water pollution that causes closed beaches and unsafe swim areas caused mostly by sewage spills, not polluted runoff?

A:Polluted runoff from city and suburban landscapes is the only major type of water pollution that is increasing in the region. Pollution from farms, sewage plants, and other sources is decreasing. Thanks to the "flush fee," for example, we've dramatically reduced nitrogen pollution from sewage plants. A handful of sewer systems in the state are so old it will take many years more to stop recurring spills and overflows. Spills from those systems can play a major role in beach closings. But Sally Hornor, a microbiologist with Anne Arundel Community College who has tested county water for years, says bacteria from polluted runoff is the culprit in unsafe swim areas far more often. Sewage spills are occasional. Polluted runoff occurs after every storm generating about one-half inch of rain or more.

Q: Do stormwater utility fees or the cost of polluted runoff clean-up hurt Maryland's business competitiveness?

A: Forward-thinking community leaders believe the benefits to communities from addressing polluted runoff far outweigh the speculative concern that businesses will relocate. These benefits include safe, swimmable, fishable water, as well as the economic benefits that come from having a clean and healthy environment. And if businesses consider relocating to Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Virginia instead of Maryland, they might be surprised to learn that 18 local jurisdictions in Virginia, eight local governments in West Virginia, at least two municipalities in Delaware (including the largest, Wilmington), and several in Pennsylvania already have stormwater fee systems in place—and these numbers are growing. Nationwide, nearly 1,500 jurisdictions—including large cities like Houston and Tampa—have similar policies in place—and they are working.

Senate Bill 1029—The Maryland Agricultural Certainty Program

More Pollution Reduction, Sooner, Cheaper

One of several major bills passed by the 2013 Maryland Legislative General Assembly and supported by CBF was SB1029, the "Maryland Agricultural Certainty Program." The bill offers farmers who voluntarily meet 2025 water quality goals now (12 years ahead of schedule) flexibility when they meet any potential new laws and regulations. The program offers certainty that farmers are actually reducing pollution on their farms, and also gives farmers business certainty once they meet all water quality standards.

(left to right) Pam Abramson and Amy Reyes of RALE (Residents Against Landsdale Expansion) at the future site of an 1,100 new home subdivision in Frederick County. Photo by Tom Pelton/CBF Staff

Some Counties Are Working Hard to Implement Maryland's Anti-Sprawl Law; Others are Not

By enacting the Sustainable Growth & Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012, the state Administration and Maryland General Assembly took a critical step forward in protecting our waters, open spaces, and rural agricultural economy from the impacts of harmful sprawl. This law, which took effect on July 1, 2012, seeks greater accountability and predictability by encouraging counties to map future growth into categorical "tiers." Counties were to adopt "tier maps” for future growth by December 31, 2012 or face limits on new growth outside areas with existing sewers.

Many localities are working hard to implement the law. Unfortunately, a few counties appear to be falling short of the law and are putting our waterways and rural lands at risk. Some counties, such as Cecil, have adopted maps that do not measure up to the standards in the law, according to the Maryland Department of Planning (MDP). As a result, these maps do not adequately protect our waters and rural lands from over-development.

Below you will find a map of the "Septics Law" adoption status by county, as of September 3, 2014. (Visit the MDP website for the most current map)

It isn't fair to saddle existing residents and businesses with the substantial costs of cleaning up new pollution from harmful sprawl. We are making progress in reducing pollution to the Bay. Development is the only major pollution source on the increase. It is only fair—and sensible—to target new growth where it will pollute less.

Lawsuit Filed Over Sparrows Point Pollution

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and the Baltimore Harbor WATERKEEPER (WATERKEEPER), filed a lawsuit Friday, July 9, 2010 against the current and former owners of the Sparrows Point steel plant, which has illegally discharged hazardous waste for decades. The complaint, filed in federal court and joined by several local residents, seeks a full investigation and cleanup of pollution. The plaintiffs are concerned for the health of neighbors of the plant, as well as the environment of Bear Creek and the Patapsco River.

Grey's Landfill - Select Groundwater Contaminants

Coke Point Landfill - Select Groundwater Contaminants

Sediment Testing

"This plant has released toxic chemicals into waters where people live, swim, and fish, day after day, year after year," said CBF President William C. Baker. "It's time to draw a line in the sand. Our lawsuit will petition the court to require the company to stop this pollution, and to do a full assessment of the risks to human health and the environment."

"The surrounding communities have unfairly suffered pollution for years from this site. Studies point to the extensive contamination of the river, yet Severstal has shown no intention of cleaning up their pollution. That is unacceptable" said Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper, Eliza Steinmeier. "We, the people, own this river and nobody—including Severstal or previous owners of the site—has a right to contaminate our river."

The complaint charges the current owner of the plant, Severstal N/A, and previous owner ArcelorMittal, with generating, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste at the site without a permit, and continuing to do so in violation of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and of state laws. The wastes, including benzene, chromium, lead, naphthalene, and zinc, have been found in Bear Creek and the Patapsco River. The chemicals could present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.

Contamination at the plant and in sediments surrounding the facility has been well documented. At one location, benzene, a human carcinogen, has been found in groundwater at levels 100,000 times the government's Maximum Contaminant Levels-concentrations. Sediments from some areas surrounding the facility are toxic to aquatic organisms. In addition, concentrations of some contaminants in sediments and groundwater exceed screening levels for human health.

Andrew Fan, EPA Project Coordinator for Sparrows Point, told a community gathering June 24 that one major source of offsite pollution at the mill, an underground hydrocarbon plume flowing into Bear Creek, is much like the light crude oil spill in the Gulf.

At issue is what's to be done. In May, 2009, CBF and the Harborkeeper filed a Notice of Intent to sue. Since then, federal and state agencies pushed Severstal toward a cleanup, but Severstal resisted a full off-site assessment and cleanup. That is unacceptable. Residents live all along Bear Creek, and often swim, fish, and crab in waters where the sediment is highly toxic in places.

"It's gotten to the point people are afraid to get in the water," said Will Strong, a resident and co-plaintiff who lives on Bear Creek. He said one of his neighbors recently fell in the water and immediately stripped off all his clothes, not knowing to what harm he might be exposed."

"Residents need to know whether Bear Creek and the Patapsco River are safe. No one should have to wait so many years for a risk assessment. A full investigation should begin immediately, and any necessary remediation should follow," said Dr. Beth McGee, CBF Senior Water Quality Scientist.

Nearly a century of industrial activities at the Sparrows Point Industrial Complex has left behind a legacy of toxic contamination that rivals many Superfund sites. The original owner, Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC), operated on the roughly 2,300 acre site for more than 80 years, making iron and steel and building ships.

In the late 90's, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) sued BSC for numerous hazardous waste violations. As a result, in 1997 a Consent Decree was issued that stipulated various cleanup and assessment requirements. The terms of the Consent Decree have not fully been met.

A Luxemburg steel company, ArcelorMittal, acquired Sparrows Point on June 26, 2006. A Russian steel company, Severstal, acquired ownership of the majority of the Sparrows Point complex on April 14, 2008. Both companies accepted responsibility for existing pollution at the site when they purchased the property.

Severstal has made some progress after CBF and the Harborkeeper threatened a lawsuit in 2009, and after EPA and MDE increased enforcement of the Consent Decree. Severstal is expected, for instance, to begin preliminary cleanup in the coming months of the hydrocarbon plume at Coke Point section of the plant. But the steps do not go far enough. Severstal has challenged its legal obligation to investigate contamination that has migrated beyond the plant's borders, and disputed EPA and MDE’s authority to require the company to undertake such an assessment. CBF and the Harborkeeper believe legal pressure is necessary to prompt full and speedy corrective action.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Severstal and ArcelorMittal to fully investigate offsite contamination, take emergency measures to more fully prevent pollution leaving the facility, and to remove and remediate off-site contamination, among other measures.

A cleaner Bear Creek and Patapsco River could improve the health and welfare of Dundalk residents. Habitat will improve for fish, crabs, and other wildlife in the water. The area will become more attractive to residents, visitors, and business customers. Several business owners are co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

"My frustration is I want this river cleaned up," said Strong, who has lived on Bear Creek for most of his life and within the past few weeks watched peeler crabs die after "dark water" rolled through. "I've seen some good times but these are really getting to be bad times."